- 18 -
Second, we did not have an opportunity to observe the
special agent’s testimony. Respondent called no witnesses in
this case, did not establish that witnesses with personal
knowledge of the facts were unavailable, and did not examine
petitioner regarding the fraud issue even though petitioner
testified at the trial in this case.
Third, parties in our Court sometimes stipulate that
testimony from another case will be received into evidence as if
it were testimony in our case. See, e.g., Am. Lithofold Corp. v.
Commissioner, 55 T.C. 904, 914 (1971); Sparkman v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2005-136 n.4; Sexcius v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1996-175 n.3; Estate of Baxter v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-
4; Rhodes v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1977-33; Haimowitz v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1971-241 n.2. The testimony of one of
respondent’s agents at petitioner’s criminal trial was attached
to the stipulation in this case, but petitioner made clear at the
start of the trial that he did not intend to stipulate that the
prior testimony was admissible as if it were testimony in this
case. Absent a meeting of the minds of the parties on this
point, we do not consider the testimony from the criminal case as
if it were testimony in this case.
We sustained respondent’s determination that part of the
proceeds of several loans that petitioner deposited in his bank
accounts was income to him in 1985; however, neither the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011